Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Capitalism Can Be Overcome

Posted 1 year ago on May 24, 2013, 11:55 a.m. EST by struggleforfreedom80 (6584)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Capitalism is the problem. Capitalism is undemocratic, immoral and unsustainable; it must eventually be abolished. But can this be achieved? This state-capitalist system we have today, has by now become well established in many parts of the world. Some would say that it would be an extremely hard, or maybe even impossible thing to do.

Well, there’s no doubt that the struggle for a free and democratic society will be hard and long, but overcoming capitalism is perfectly doable. If we look at history, we see that all sorts of well established systems and regimes have been abolished many times before. Time and time again, people have organized and eventually dismantled the undemocratic and authoritarian systems they were forced to live in. Whether it was slave societies, monarchies, Stalinist regimes, fascist regimes, they’ve all been dismantled many places thruout history.

And it can happen again – including with our current undemocratic system: Capitalism.

But how? How can we overcome this corporate-dominated system? What should the tactics and strategies be? I've shared some of my thoughts on what should be prioritized in the struggle for freedom here:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/how-do-we-fight-capitalism-the-1/

(If you have some thoughts on this topic, please share them in the comments below)

But what should we replace capitalism with? I think it’s pretty obvious. We should work to create a libertarian socialist society: A free and sustainable society based on solidarity, mutual aid, and workplace democracy. In other words, a real participatory democracy where people have a say in the things they’re a part of and affected by:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/workplace-democracy-and-workers-self-management/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/part-ii-workers-self-management-workplace-democrac/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/why-anarchism-is-the-way-to-go/

Capitalism can, and should be abolished; and we know what it should be replaced with.

Capitalism can be overcome!

257 Comments

257 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by beautifulworld (20523) 11 months ago

Capitalism can be overcome.

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (20523) 1 year ago

Nice post, sff.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Thanks, BW :)

[+] -4 points by DiegoSanchezAlfonso (-155) 1 year ago

Did you notice how shooz spammed this posting below with his repeated and ridiculous court case comments? That's what trolling is. I used real arguments and stuck to the topic of this post until him and yourself attacked me in tandem with false accusations.

Don't worry, you're not the only one who's posts are being trolled by shooz's spam.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/art-vs-austerity-who-wins/#comment-974755

You got your gossip for your empty accusations against me from him right? You should read the link above.

[-] 2 points by pigeonlady (169) from Brooklyn, NY 1 year ago

That is great....CALL IT SOMETHING ELSE!! It's the inference in the names of other social philosophies that cause a knee-jerk reaction, the word association present in the titles..Some here want to call a camel a camel and win openly, not beat them at their own game by simple semantics. It's a thought though. While on people in gov't, WATCH YOUR BACKS, a couple of politicos purporting to be OWS supporters are far from it, feigning concern for the underdog in order to garner support for posts they do not deserve while cultivating the moneyed and influential as cronies. BTW, BradB b da dude!!

[-] 2 points by DAWNMARDIN (2) 1 year ago

To the person who asked: Call it something else? What do you suggest, then? ↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink [-] 1 points by BradB (2223) from Washington, DC 1 day ago Hi struggleforfreedom ;)

well.... what to call it ... ? I don't know ... how about ...

•Freedomism •Prosperityism •Imagine-ism ... hehe •Equalism •Progressive-ism •People-ism WE CALL IT A DEMOCRACY.

[-] 2 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 1 year ago

I like that ; )

[-] 2 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 1 year ago

struggleforfreedom80 et all...

  • How can you be so smart .... and still so self destructive ???

  • I live in Wash DC .... I know a lot of people in the gov.... and 99% of them are crooks ....

  • but they have power....

  • they will never ever allow you or anyone to replace their so-called Capitalism with anything labeled socialism or communism .....

  • they will fight you to their death .... they are CRAZY ....

  • If you want to win this battle .... CALL IT SOMETHING ELSE ... they will never know the difference... and You/We Might Win ....

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

If the resistance becomes large enough, then these crooks you’re talking about will be defeated. As I explained in the article, the people have abolished all sorts of power systems thruout history; it can happen again.

No one can predict how many violent conflicts that will occur in a transition phase, but I hope it will be as peaceful as possible.

Call it something else? What do you suggest, then?

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 1 year ago

Hi struggleforfreedom ;)

well.... what to call it ... ? I don't know ... how about ...

  • Freedomism
  • Prosperityism
  • Imagine-ism ... hehe
  • Equalism
  • Progressive-ism
  • People-ism ...

the real point imo... is... let's not create enemies ... when it is not necessary...

  • if we attack the greed of the greedy capitalists ... no-one will argue ...
  • if we attack the corruption in our government & court system ... no-one will argue ...
  • if we attack the stripping of natural resources & pollution ... no-one will argue...
  • if we attack the bad stuff ... no-one will argue...

If we simply start building a socially structured system ... ... no-one will argue...

  • if we simply ask for the same that the capitalists get ... ie, little or no interest funding ..... no-one will argue...

  • we can build a "Social Reserve Bank" exactly like the "Federal Reserve Bank" ... except it's focused on "social profits" as opposed to "monetary profits"...

  • and we will be successful ... if we don't create enemies....

  • the capitalists will embrace us ... If we are not a threat to them...
  • and why would we be ?... we would be providing the services that they would other-wise be taxed to perform....

It's a Win Win....

  • and eventually .... it would provide everything you are asking for... without any conflict or opposition...
  • and it would open the doors to a zillion new job opportunities... without having to force anyone to do anything ,,,

; )

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

But don’t you think implementing new well known terms will be just as hard as convincing people that there’s nothing wrong or scary about the old ones?

I agree, we shouldn’t create enemies when it’s not necessary. However, wealth and power is now very highly concentrated in the hands of a non-elected elite. That’s unacceptable. These people should eventually be stripped from their power. They’re not going to like that of course, but it should still be done.

[-] -3 points by oranges (-42) 1 year ago

Hiding misunderstood concepts behind new terms is not the answer. The answer is to educate people as to what these concepts really are. There is no word better than anarchy to describe anarchy. It is the absence of hierarchy, nothing more. Just like atheist is the negation of theism.

Trickeries will simply make our case worse off in the long run.

[-] 0 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

Yes, they will argue, and yes we will have enemies.

Freedom isn't free, and fairness and equality won't be handed to us neither.

But don't be afraid... have a strong heart.. be brave.. seek out the enemy .. let the enemy be .."AFRAID"

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

War is Peace

Love is Hate

Truth is Lies

Freedom isn't free

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 1 year ago

Matt.... that's one of the best posts I've seen here ; )

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

if only it were mine

orwell wrote 1984

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Freedom IS Free.

That's why it is called FREEdom.

Murder and war make you less free, not more.

Peace is Peace.

War is War.

Love is Love.

Hate is Hate.

Truth is Truth.

Fact is Fact.

Reality is relative, so you may well think that murder and violence are good, but that doesnt mean that what you say is Truth.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

reality is not relative

reality exists with or without us

it allows a medium to communicate with each other through

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Einstein, Bohr and thousands of more physicists would say that reality very much relative. Time is relative, space is relative, experience is relative.

Quantum mechanics says that outcomes only become certain through the act of observation. There is no way to know for sure whether the cat is dead or alive until you open the box and look.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

yes within a physical universe which we share

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

And.....

What is your point? Do you agree that reality is relative?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

I would not agree that actions exists only in individual perception as an excuse not being part of objects one interacts with

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

But it is scientific fact..... Quantum mechanic is by far the most successful scientific theory in human history.

Relativity is fact, not just my opinion.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

we all exist relative to each other

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

That is what I said.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by StacyBartell (-10) 1 year ago

You misunderstand the domain of application of Quantum Mechanics. This theory applies to the microscopic, at the subatomic level. It does not apply to the macroscopic, the atom level and higher. The theory used to understand macroscopic objects is Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, or, if precise measurements are not required, Newtonian Physics can be used on slow time scales. Both these theories make predictions based on causal relational chains, and not statistics like Quantum Mechanics does.

It is thus incorrect to state that Quantum Mechanics says something about Schrödinger's cat in the box. Quantum Mechanics simply does not work at the level of cats.

Schrödinger's cat in the box is a thought experiment, a metaphor, used to help us understand what happens at the subatomic level with Quantum Mechanics. It is flawed to interpret this literally.

Put a cat in a box, then fill this box with enough Zyklon B to kill ten cats, wait one hour, and you will be able to know that the cat in the box is dead without looking at it. You can try the experiment 1,000,000 times and you will get 1,000,000 dead cats. Not the results you would get if you did a similar experiment at the subatomic scale where Quantum Mechanics work.

If you were correct that Quantum Mechanics functioned on all scales, then scientists would not need be looking for the TOE (Theory of Everything) which hopes to combine Quantum Mechanics with The Special Theory of Gravity. We could also stop using courts, as no person could be proven to have committed a crime. In fact, we couldn't accomplish much of anything since causal chains would break down entirely. Luckily, Quantum Mechanics does not work at the macroscopic level in which we live our daily lives. This means I can put toasts in the toaster, press the on switch, and be certain that the toasts will pop in a few minutes unless the toaster is broken.


What you mostly likely misunderstood about Schrödinger's cat is the precision of the scenario he proposed.

He proposed a scenario with a cat in a sealed box, wherein the cat's life or death depended on the state of a subatomic particle

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrödinger's_cat

This scenario is hypothetical. There is no evidence that Quantum Mechanics affects the macroscopic, or, in other words, affects The Special Theory of Gravity. We have yet to see a case where subatomic particles affect change on the macroscopic level. If we had, we would well be on our way to create the TOE.


Quantum mechanics says that outcomes only become certain through the act of observation.

We correct by rephrasing - "Quantum mechanics says that outcomes at the subatomic level only become certain through the act of observation."

After which we can add, "At the macroscopic level, the level in which we live, equal of bigger than atoms, science permits us to predict outcomes all the time which is what permits us to create all sorts of applications like planes, toasters, computers, etc..."


The world is thus not relative in the way you think. It is relative from the point of view of the observer, and things get quite different in different time scales, but, on Earth, where everything moves quite slowly compared to the speed of light, there is not much relativity at all.

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

"This theory applies to the microscopic, at the subatomic level. It does not apply to the macroscopic, the atom level and higher."

Quantum Mechanics applies to you, me and everything else of any size in the entire universe. It only that its effects are most apparent at the micro level. microprocessors and diodes and lasers and GPS would all be impossible without quantum mechanics. We live in a Quantum world and almost ever thing we see, do or touch is a result of it.

The TOE is an attempt to unify the two theories of Quantum Fields and General Relativity and has almost little to nothing to do with scope. Infact the force particles untilized by Gravity (that would General Relativity) are so small that not even the LHC is capable of detecting them.

There are an infinite amount of possiblities in an infinite amount of universes, which make up our Multiverse. We only experience the outcome that is most likely to happen in our particular reality. Things fall at 32 m/s/s because that is what is the most likely to happen here. In another universe, on another earth the rate of acceleration for gravity may be different (infact it probally is ).

Recent actually, phycists at CU Boulder help to show how QM works at the macro levels.
http://phys.org/news/2013-02-heisenberg-uncertainty-principle-macro.html

Everything, you and me are always moving at the speed of light, it is just that we are moving in 4 directions. We are constantly moving through the 3 spacial dimesions, as well as the time dimesion.

I highly recommend reading Brian Greene's books. He does a good job of explaining the concepts in a non-math way.

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 1 year ago

quote:>>> Yes, they will argue, and yes we will have enemies.

why ?

we would be zero threat to them .... they will laugh at us

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

They laugh at us now .

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 1 year ago

so.. ? who cares... as long as we win ?

[-] 0 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

This battle for equality is centuries old.. a struggle since near the begining of time itself..the masses have been beaten, enslaved.. , and broken many times .

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

Actually, this particular saga started just a couple of hundred years ago, at the start of the industrial age. The "fathers" of industry needed a workforce, whether enslaved or not, and the commons were gradually fenced off, and the river frontage gradually closed off, so the average Jan and Joe could no longer subsist off the fat of the land, and had to cowtow to the captains of industry in order to subsist on the meagre wages that were never really enough to get off the treadmill.

[-] 0 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

i agree food and energy are the primary means of control. check out my post i just wrote on the matter before even seeing your comments. http://occupywallst.org/forum/food-and-energy-the-weapons-of-choice/

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

Good post. I just responded over there.

The taking back of the commons is something I would like to see being right back up there at the head of the list. It's what made this movement so real for so many people, back in the day of Zuccotti park. Things were different after the actual OCCUPY part of #ows was quashed.

[-] 0 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

this is why we have to take them back again. force the confrontation and overwhelm them with numbers. i think the liberty movement is quite a bit further along insofar as not seeing ows persons as the enemy so i believe many more people would join. course i don't know for sure.

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

In Australia, it's sort of just sneaking back in, without too much fanfare. Beginning with the growing numbers of seniors selling up the family home to go on the road permanently, and our growing numbers of budget travellers in mini-vans doing it on a shoestring, there's a public acceptance of people just parking up for a few days to a week, in some of the most unlikely locations, as long as there's a public amenities block within cooee.

Just yesterday, I photographed a tent set up right next to the toilet block across the road from the copshop. This is adjacent to a very busy walkway and cycle path, right on the beach. I walk it every morning, weather permitting.

Most of our caravan (trailer) parks are full, so the grey brigaders camp at the local showgrounds, the botanical gardens, and truckstops. I like it. It the way I travel, mostly.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

(sff/HCdebate continued)

"People SHOULD have the only say in their own lives! That's what I've been saying!”

And if an individual's actions affect another individual's life? Then what?

“When did you ever hear me suggest that one person have power over all others?”

That’s what’s going to happen if democracy is absent. If people aren’t able to have a say in the things that affect them, then authoritarian structures will arise.

“Socialism dumpy does NOT work as proven by history.”

What do you mean by “socialism”?

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

For example: just because I own a car doesn't mean I deserve a say or the say in the oil industry. Same with most anything.

Socialism: an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy.

Am I wrong that you want "social ownership" and "cooperative management"?

I'm not 100% sure what you mean by Socialism. You seem to think that it is compatible with both anarchy and democracy.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

I noticed all your comments last night. We’ve been thru this before. In order for people to have real freedom and control in their own lives, there must be economic democracy. Today the economy is to a large extent run by the financial elite and the huge corporations. This is unacceptable. The economic institutions must be democratized. People should have a say in the things they’re a part of and affected by.

You also haven’t answered my questions: If one individual’s actions affect another, then what? Should individuals have a say in the things that affect them? Who decides the laws in your society?

[-] -2 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Wealth is NOT a prereq for freedom. You nor me nor anyone else has to have Stuff in order to be free. Sure a nice car and tv and house are nice, but they are not required for one to be Free.

Freedom doesnt have anything to do with money or economics. Freedom is the state of individuals being in complete control of their own destinies.

Individuals should have a say in their lives and only their lives. People should NOT have any say other than that of advice in the lives of others. Law should only be made by consensus when their is no objection and should not never be decided partisanly.

The economic institutions of the US Federation should be abolished. There should be no IRS, no FED, no Treasury, ect. Localities should have control over thier own economies and unltimately individuals.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Freedom is about individuals being in control of their own lives and destinies, yes. But that must also include production. People work, create, contribute; they produce. When there’s production, then that has to be controlled by the participants. In other words, the resources and the institutions in society must be controlled democratically by the workforce and the communities.

Individuals should be able to control their own lives, and that must include having a say in the things they’re a part of and affected by. When an individual’s actions affect other people’s lives, then they should have a say as well.

[-] -2 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Individuals should be able to NOT produce if they so choose. I and everyone else have the right NOT to work.

i dont want a say in yours or anyone else's life, whether I impact it or not.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

If you don’t want to contribute, then that’s up to you. However, most people want to work and participate. There will be production in society, whether you want to take part in it or not. And when there’s production, then that must be controlled by the ones involved and affected. People should have the right to have a say in the how their communities are organized. If you don't want to participate and take part in this, that's your choice.

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Who said that I didn't want to work? All i said was that I reserve the right Not to work if I so choose.

I can do as I please no matter what you or anyone says. No one can I inhibit or infringe on my rights to life, liberty and property and I can't inhibit or infringe on anyone else's.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

If you don’t want to work, then that’s your choice. You should be free, but not in the sense of “free to do anything”. You live in a society with other people, and if your actions affect other people’s life, then they should have a say as well. The institutions in society should be run democratically by the participants.

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

The institutions of society should be run freely, openly and via construe decision making.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

The institutions should be run by the ones participating. That way people are in control of their own lives.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

You didn’t answer the question. If one individual’s actions affect another, then what? Should individuals have a say in the things that affect them? Who decides the laws in your society?

When you say that socialism has failed, then I assume you’re talking about Leninist-type regimes. That has nothing to do with what I advocate. I want real socialism: libertarian socialism: workers and communities controlling the economic institutions.

Creating a LS society is perfectly doable. We’ve seen examples of libertarian socialist/libertarian socialist-like societies working very well. And we see bits and pieces of it all over the place.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/workplace-democracy-and-workers-self-management/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/cooperatives-info-articles-documentaries-etc/

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

" change of consciousness "

It only takes one percent (1%) to control the consciousness of the world. As we see the one percent of today are doing a fine job convincing the world Capitalism is so great.. but that belief is begining to crumble. Soon it will be dust in the wind.. dust in the wind .. bye bye dust in the wind

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Yes, capitalism has become less popular, and I believe this trend will continue and increase. Our current system is not sustainable. Big changes must come at some point.

[-] 3 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

I agree, "big changes must come at some point"

And as i just said in another post, 'systemic change' can only come about in times of crisis

So now is the time to act if we want to save ourselves from extinction

~Odin~

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Communism/Socialism is also much, much less popular than it ever was before. Not that it was ever that popular.

Actually State Capitalism is the most popular system of oppression as of yet.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

I think most people would find the ideas of libertarian socialism reasonable if they were properly introduced to them. Libertarian socialism is about human liberation. I think most people want to be free.

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Notice that you prefeced you repsonse with "most". Majoritarianism has clearly failed. MOST is not good enough.

Buddhism is about liberation. Socialism is about group-think.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

People should be able to control their own lives. The institutions in society should therefore be controlled democratically by the participants. A libertarian socialist society is what we should strive for.

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

You said you want anarchy though........LEADERLESS.

How can anyone have control of anything if noone has the authority to control anything in the first place?

A Free society would let people rule themselves and no others. A Free society would put basic human dignity above money and things. A Free society would be completely unconcerned with how or who makes things.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

In a libertarian socialist society, people control the economy together democratically. There are no leaders, everyone are in control of their affairs. Maybe this will clear things up:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/why-anarchism-is-the-way-to-go/

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

I read that and Im still severely confused. How can you have democracy and anarchism at the same time?

How someone simaltaneously rule and not rule at the same time?

[-] 3 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

When everyone has an equal say, no individual controls others. When the workplace is run democratically by the participants, they are the ones in control.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 1 year ago

that seems to be saying that this works if every person agrees. there will always be the ones that choose the opposite of what all the others say,, what about them? would not the 'majority' rule them? or do they still have the right to do as they please?

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

When you live and associate with other people, everyone can’t get their will all the time, of course. When many are involved and affected by a decision, then the decision should be made democratically by the participants. Sometimes the majority agrees with you, sometimes not, that’s the way it is. If the minority is in control (which is the alternative to democracy), then authoritarian structures will arise. Democracy should be controlled from below, with direct participation in the communities and workplaces. That way people will be in control of their own lives.

[-] 0 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 1 year ago

that is the way it is now. everyone that wants to can participate in the governing of thier own community. workplaces can be unionized so that the workers are participating in the workplace. how is that any different that what you are espousing?

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

In order for people to have real control in their lives, there must be economic democracy. Today the economy is to a large extent run by the financial elite and the huge corporations. This is unacceptable. The economic institutions must be democratized.

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Finally I think i convinced you. You said "no individual controls others." and that's what I said. No one should have control over anyother person but themselves.

Communism simply does not work as proven by 150 years of history.

[-] 4 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

You’re making no sense. Libertarian socialism is about individuals being free to control their own lives. When people organize things together, then there should be democratic control – everyone should have an equal say. Otherwise hierarchies and power structures arise. In a non-democratic, laissez-faire-type society, the ones who accumulate wealth and resources, will be the rulers.

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 1 year ago

sff...

I am a firm supporter of Direct Democracy ... and have made many contributive posts to the DD working group at the nycga site....

but I have to ask... how is your Libertarian socialism ... going to determine who does what under that system?

is everyone going to vote that Brad .. must collect the trash... when Brad really wants to simply grow his own food and study math.... ?

how is other people voting on what I or anyone does ... promoting freedom ?

as for what I see ... Libertarian socialism is a Beautiful dream .... so is pure Anarchy .... John Lennon's Imagine... and many others....

but as a practical working working model ... which we could start today... if we had the power....there are still many details missing.... no ?

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Details on how production is organized should be decided democratically by the communities and the workforce. I think that necessary work that no one wants to do, should be shared among the participants. No one should be forced to work, but remember that in a libertarian socialist society, people have the right to, and are encouraged to participate, cooperate and take responsibility in the association they’re engaged in. Creating a LS society is perfectly doable. We’ve seen examples of libertarian socialist/libertarian socialist-like societies working very well. And we see bits and pieces of it all over the place.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/workplace-democracy-and-workers-self-management/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/cooperatives-info-articles-documentaries-etc/

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

the resources must continue to be distributed to the people in the cities

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Socialism is about collective rights first and individual rights second. Freedom is other way around.

I want a society void of money and economics.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Libertarian Socialism is socialist anarchism. Libertarian Socialism includes political philosophies such as anarchist communism, anarcho-syndicalism and others.

If your actions affect others, then they should have a say. You live in a society with other people.

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Anarchism and libertarianism are similar, but are far from the same. Socialism dumpy does NOT work as proven by history. Mixing anarchism and communism (which are the two least successful systems ever) will only make things worse.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Anarchism is about dismantling illegitimate hierarchies and authority. Libertarian Socialism (left anarchism) is about creating a system in which people control their own lives, workplace and community; it’s about human liberation:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/part-ii-workers-self-management-workplace-democrac/

So you want a non-democratic society where trade of goods and services is banned? Is that what you’re saying? Are you against production? If not, who controls the means of production? Who controls the resources? Are people allowed to accumulate resources?

You're not making sense again.

[-] -2 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Libertarian socialism is NOT the same as anarchism. It is true that both are equally bad, but that does not make the details of each the same.

I want a Common Law Republic that allows individuals to enjoy their inherent freedom and soveriegnty without the interference of someone else from far away.

I deserve to decide my own destiny without interference from you or anyone else. You should not have say in what I make (if I choose to make anything at all), how much of it I want to make, how much I want to sell it for (if anything) and who or where I want to give it out to.

Communism makes no sense. History has time and time again proven its complete inadaquacy. It cant work because it puts the majority/collective before the individual. No one should have a say in anyone's life but their own.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

economics can be derive from ecosystem

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

It "can", but I "can" also do most anything I want if I choose.

Do you have an baconic evidence to back up your statement?

[-] -1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

All sides wont agree all the time, and thats fine.

My only point is that when everything is very local. the amount that agree increases dramatically, because its more tangible.

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Consensus and common law republics must be at the local level to succeed, but neither required uniformity or collectivism.

Local=good. Socialism=not so good at any level.

[-] -1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Socialism works fine if its kept at the local level because people get a genuine enjoyment from helping others.

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Cooperation only works if ALL sides agree ALL of the time; which is extremely unlikely, local or otherwise.

You can help another person without having to share all of your stuff with them

[-] -2 points by DiegoSanchezAlfonso (-155) 1 year ago

everyone should have an equal say.

What method do you use to accomplish this? What type of direct democracy?

And, how do you guard against the argumentum ad populum fallacy? For example, if everyone in society can pronounce themselves on things like scientific decisions, how can those decisions be made good without everyone having thorough knowledge of science? It's often the case that what the majority wants isn't the best for the majority.

[-] 3 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 1 year ago

True...

  • Communism simply does not work
  • Capitalism simply does not work
  • Socialism... (the compromise between Capitalism & Communism) simply does not work ....

we need something new....

  • we need a system that takes the ideals, the goals of all ideologies ... and works all of them together... all at the same time....
  • we need an Advancement ... not a Compromise....

we need Idealism ...

Think about it.... there will always be some form of trade....

  • even after all are sheltered, fed, and provided healthcare...
  • there will be those that can offer or desire more.... and when there is trade ... there will always be a form of trade ... ie a currency or iou ... the same thing...

  • I truly want to see John Lennon's Imagine come true....

  • where there are no leaders... because there is no need for leaders...

I no more want some voting block telling me what to do ... than I want the money guy's telling me what to do ...

we need a new way ....Idealism ...

based on All the ideologies of ...

  • Individual Freedom & Economic Prosperity
  • Individual Prosperity & Economic Freedom
[-] 1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Best post yet!

No one here has suggested Eco-economics, which rewards individuals who actually make things, while also making it voluntary to make anything in the first place. I don't know if this is the answer(in fact it probably isn't), I'm just saying that nobody has suggested it.

Imagine there is no money. I wonder if you can?

[-] 3 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 1 year ago

Imagine there is no money. I wonder if you can?

hehehe ... I don't have to Imagine it.... I experience it .. ;)

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Id rather be in your shoes than Donald Trump's anyday.

Money and greed never did any good for anyone. Look for real wealth, not the paper kind.

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 1 year ago

yet seriously .... a world void of money....

  • actually it will happen some day... when machines fabricate (or grow) anything we want... or anything we can dream of... for free ....including the self replication of themselves ....

  • once that happens .... money would become fairly useless ...

however there is a good quality of money ... believe it or not....

  • money is one of the very few things of power... that has no prejudice ....
  • money does not care who possesses it....
[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 1 year ago

unless the group disapproves the way the individual controls themselves? how is that any different than this?

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

When the majority is able to dictate to the minority or to the individual, then freedom is lost. If a person, any person, is not able to act according to their own consious, then freedom is lost.

Orwell said that freedom is the ability to tell others what they dont want to hear.

The individual should have control over itself and nothing else.

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5854) 1 year ago

http://occupywallst.org/article/capitalism-is-the-problem/#comment-973249

In short, capitalism is private employment. If the employment is public, it's not capitalism. If the employment is self-employment, be it a self-employed individual or a group of self-employed individuals, it's not capitalism. It's only capitalism when a private individual or group of private individuals employs a non-self-employed individual. Thus, the solution is to simply facilitate the means for people to become self-employed, be it as individuals or as cooperatives, and to patronize those people whenever possible, uniting them all in a community of shared interests involving the common financial institutions of a credit union and mutual insurance company.

The first step is to simply recognize capitalism as:

the private employment of the non-self-employed.

Once the "non-self-employed" component of it is realized, the path towards the solution becomes apparent.

[-] 1 points by kiwi (-1) 1 year ago

If capitalism is a bad system, which I think it clearly is, then it will be overcome like other bad systems in history. This is evident.

One thing to remember about most capitalist countries is that people are still freer to say and do what they want as opposed to more repressive regimes like totalitarian and monarchic systems. This means we can actually start libertarian socialism inside the cosmos of capitalism. Nothing stops us from starting companies and groups based on this concept. You could, tomorrow, for example, start a software business based on libertarian socialist principles. Why not?

DIY and open-source movements are already moving towards that trend. Many NGOs are also based on horizontal structures.

Don't forget, we, the people, are the ones who buy products from capitalist creators. The means of production are privatized, but the choice to buy is not. More and more people want to do the right thing. They want to buy from people which they respect. Provide them with a business model based on libertarian socialism, and a lot of people would purchase products from that business based on the fact that every worker is treated equally. It's still not perfect libertarian socialism in that products are sold, but it's a step closer.

What I'm saying is that the revolution can creep from the inside. With more and more businesses based on libertarian socialist principles being built, slowly capitalism will fall. And, if libertarian socialism is the answer, the truth, then it should be easy to start such businesses and take over capitalism.

I wrote a post on a related topic over a year ago. It might interest you.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/why-and-how-ows-must-change-or-onto-anarcho-syndic/

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

You have -2000 karma points. Now why do you think that is?

[+] -4 points by oranges (-42) 1 year ago

Is your reliance on logical fallacies based on your inability to provide worthwhile counter arguments? You judge arguments and ideas based on the user's score, not the arguments and ideas themselves. Is that because you are unable to judge an argument or idea without factoring in how the proposer is perceived and "coined" by the community? This is sad, especially for an anarchist who shouldn't care about a hierarchical system like scoring on a forum.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

I was just asking a question. I don’t see any inconsistency about being an anarchist and at the same time being perfectly fine with karma points.

[+] -4 points by oranges (-42) 1 year ago

A true anarchist would not want to create scoring hierarchies between members of a society. He would want to judge ideas and arguments based on the merits of the ideas and the arguments, not on the proposer which is a logical fallacy.

You probably played a lot of video games in your youth, that's perhaps why you care about points so much. This is not a video game. It's a revolution. We can use good ideas and arguments from anybody, whether we trust them or not, whether they have high scores or not, whether others like them or not, etc... Only ideas matter.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

You say that it’s the serious issues that should be discussed, yet you start talking about my childhood...

If you want to discuss politics, then present you case, calm down a little, and debate in a civilized manner.

[+] -4 points by oranges (-42) 1 year ago

Alright. Do you believe an anarchic society should provide scores for each idea or argument provided and that these should be tallied for the remainder of the person's life in order for others in the community to be able to judge that person's new idea or argument? If yes, would you still hold this to be true even if the person's score can be manipulated through the use of electronics or mob attacks by other people who dislike the person (not necessarily disliking his ideas or arguments)? Finally, would it not be better to judge an idea or argument based on its own merits, instead of the merits society attributes to the proposer? Why or why not?

A big part of politics is the art of filtering between good and bad ideas. This is why I ask.

calm down a little and debate in a civilized manner.

You started with the use of logical fallacies, not I. I was replying to your attack on another user simply based on his score. I read his text and it is full of good ideas, and he backs those up with well written arguments. Why do you care about his score more than that?

[-] 3 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

I was just asking a question. Are you this Thrasymaque-guy, btw?

No, but in this case were dealing with the internet, with anonymous users and a website often targeted by trolls and shills, spewing right-wing propaganda, lies and so on. In that case I think setting up a karma system is a good thing.

[+] -4 points by oranges (-42) 1 year ago

Why? Do you need scores to identify lies, right wing arguments, trollish behavior, and so on? You aren't able to judge ideas and arguments on their own merits?

The system doesn't seem to be working, because my text linked above is not trollish, right wing, or evil in any way. It is based on OWS principles. Yet, my Thrasymaque's score is -2000.

Yes, I am Thrasymaque.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

It helps in some way. It makes it easier to spot people with bad intentions and so on.

[-] -3 points by oranges (-42) 1 year ago

You have to remember, this ain't no Donkey Kong. It's about ideas and arguments, not high scores.

[-] -3 points by oranges (-42) 1 year ago

Does it? What if someone is attacked by a mob on this site that simply does not like him or her? This happens quite a bit. I don't like right wing ideologies, but OWS specifically states that it supports people from all political affiliations, right on the first page of this site. It seems to me a tad strange that new users are constantly attacked and labeled as right wing shills when people disagree with their arguments and ideas. I'd like to see counter-arguments and proper debate instead of the profanity and gratuitous attacks I see much too often.

New users start with 0, and accumulate scores with every comment made. This means someone who comments a lot accumulates a high score. Thrasymaque's score was 6000+ when he wrote the text above. After he was banned, jart used an algorithm to drop his score to -2000. What if I used a bot to drop your score to -2000, would that help us to know if you're a troll or not?

What about the Twinkle Team, one of the mobs here. Not only do they attack a user in tandem by down voting him (without reading the comments one by one, they just down vote all his comments), they also up vote each other's comments.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

I’ll tell you what. If you from now on present arguments and ideas in an honest and respectful manner, then I will try my best to put suspicions about you aside. Deal?

[-] -3 points by DiegoSanchezAlfonso (-155) 1 year ago

But, I always did that? What did I write that wasn't honest and respectful? Can you point to a comment or a post? You constantly make this accusation, but I'm not sure what you find to be dishonest or without respect? It's hard for me to avoid what I don't see.

Do I use name calling, foul language? No. I know many here that do and you don't seem bothered by them.

Provide me clear examples of what you find objectionable in my comments or posts, and if I agree you are right, then I will avoid using such phrasings or methods in the future. Deal?

[-] 3 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

bringing up my childhood, claiming my opinions are caused by too much video games, for example. You've also sent me some PMs.

So, do we have a deal?

[-] -3 points by DiegoSanchezAlfonso (-155) 1 year ago

Sending PMs is wrong? Should we ask the programmers to remove that option from the system? If I recall, you responded to my PMs, thus by sending PMs yourself.

Bringing up your childhood was a simple joke. I did it because you were attacking me relentlessly using gossip lies you got from other users here. My initial messages to you were always full of respect and honesty. If we weigh all our exchanges, I would say I have been much more respectful than you. How many times have you accused me without providing any evidence for your claims? I didn't do that at all.

I'll continue using this site as I always do which is in a respectful and honest way. I always write polite messages and use arguments to back up my opinions and claims. What I write is honest.

When people call me names, insults, and accuse me of things I did not do without providing a shred of evidence, thereby propagating lies, I sometimes crack and write a joke or two like the childhood joke I wrote to you. It was harmless, certainly nothing compared to what you might read by most other posters here.

Stop your unfounded accusations and lies about me and I will respect you as I respect all others here.

You could start by stopping the use of logical fallacies to avoid my arguments. A good start would be to try to debate like an adult, with counter-arguments of worth. This ain't no Donkey Kong, so there's no need to bring up points, and other such red herrings. Only ideas should matter, not the proposer.

If you can do that, then, of course, we have a deal. I'm just waiting for you to debate in proper fashion, and have been doing that from the start. I'm a scholar. I come here for serious debates, not to be insulted by people like yourself.

BTW - The video game thing wasn't meant as an insult. It was an assumption, trying to understand why you are obsessed with points. I also played video games in my youth. Nothing wrong with that. Read my comment again, it says "probably played". It was a question more than anything else. I was simply wondering.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Ok. You made your choice. I had actually written answers to the other comments you made here, but I will now erase them. This is my very last comment to you ever (we might talk somewhere else with some of your other user names, but as soon as I find out it's you, the conversation is over)

[-] -3 points by DiegoSanchezAlfonso (-155) 1 year ago

It's unfortunate really. You attacked me with empty accusations, not the other way around. I came here for a serious debate with you, but you chose to attack me with logical fallacies based on gossip instead. I ask for evidence for your accusations, you provide none.

If you ever decide to debate like an adult, I would love a serious answer to these questions: http://occupywallst.org/forum/capitalism-can-be-overcome/#comment-974485

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

I’ve told you before about things you’ve said that were suspicious. This is my final comment on this topic with you. And this is your last change to accept the deal I proposed. If you keep going on about this any more, I will not talk to you anymore. It’s your choice. I offered to start over. Do we have a deal? Yes or no?

[-] -3 points by DiegoSanchezAlfonso (-155) 1 year ago

Look, if you can't provide evidence for your accusations that's fine. Most people here make empty accusations all the time. Let's forget that. It's lame as hell. But, let's forget it.

Just answer my arguments made in other comments in proper fashion. Debate like an adult. Etc... I'll forget about your logical fallacies and gossip based attacks on my person.

You can start here:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/capitalism-can-be-overcome/#comment-974485

[-] -3 points by DiegoSanchezAlfonso (-155) 1 year ago

I’ve told you before about things you’ve said that were suspicious.

No, you really haven't. You simply spread gossip that you heard from other users here.

You never identified any of my comments or posts as being right wing material even though you accused me of being a right wing shill.

You never provided any evidence of PMs I sent you that you call disrespectful.

You talked about changing usernames, but even after I explained the situation, you still continued on with this. Similarly with the points.

I offered to start over. Do we have a deal? Yes or no?

Your offer to start over was seeded with more accusations without evidence (disrespectful PMs).


I first came to you with proper arguments and the will to debate and learn about libertarian socialism in honest fashion. I provided arguments, questions, and ideas concerning this topic. You have not replied to any of them. You have only made empty accusations based on gossip without providing any evidence for your claims.

Honestly, the thing that is suspicious is your avoidance of my arguments and ideas. I'm beginning to think you are unable to answer and are using logical fallacies like most people do, to hide. That's what red herrings are for after all.

I'm disappointed. I thought you were another intellectual here. It's sad to see you refuse to show evidence for your accusations. Why are you so fond of logical fallacies? At first glance, you seemed like a rational thinker. Am I wrong?

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

No, I meant there were a couple of PMs that were a little disrespectful. I haven't seen any foul language or name calling, but some comments have been disrespectful and suspicious. Can we end this topic now? Are you ok with the deal I proposed above?

[-] -3 points by DiegoSanchezAlfonso (-155) 1 year ago

Can you show us which PMs were disrespectful? Post them here. That's fine. If you are going to accuse me of being disrespectful in front of everyone here, I'd like to know exactly what you are talking about.

Can we end this topic now? Are you ok with the deal I proposed above?

You just accused me of being disrespectful in PMs in public without any evidence. So no, I would like you to clarify this so that lies about myself can stop.

I would also like you to show evidence for comments you claim are suspicious. Can you provide clear examples?

I don't like to be accused without evidence. I find this lame and gratuitous. If we are to work together as people to solve the problems of the world, we shouldn't be accusing each other of things without providing clear evidence in each case. This is the wrong path towards common understanding and co-operation, both of which are necessary in libertarian socialism.

If you can clarify your attacks against me with evidence, then we can start thinking about a deal. But, you are just using this exchange to pile more empty accusations, logical fallacies, instead of arguments.

Clear your accusations with evidence, then start providing real arguments like in a proper debate. I wrote many strong arguments and questions regarding libertarian socialism, but you avoid them in every case, preferring to throw back logical fallacies instead of serious counter-arguments. I'm wondering why? Usually, those who avoid debates with logical fallacies do so because they can't properly counter argue. Is this the case? Using logical fallacies is what is suspicious in my opinion.

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

we the people have a very small collective income compared to the top 20 % that own 60 % of everything

[-] -1 points by kiwi (-1) 1 year ago

Libertarian socialism is about people working together. A hundred people could pool their money together to start a business following a model where everyone is treated equally and paid the same. Many of the 1% were poor people who started businesses and became rich. Let's not forget that.

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

but were still in the same money system

[-] -1 points by kiwi (-1) 1 year ago

So what? You don't think 20 people could get together and start a flower shop where they all treat themselves equally? Why not? What's stops a group of people from starting a business based on libertarian socialism and advertising it as such? Many people now buy products based on how the farmers are treated. Some people do care. If people had the alternative between buying from a capitalism business or one based on libertarian socialism, then we could see if people care for the latter idea. Why not try? What makes you think it's impossible?

I think a lot of anarchists and libertarian socialist prefer to live in theory. I think they are scared that if they put their theories to the test they might fail in practice. That's one of the advantages of anarchy, they can always say - "But the theory was never really tried, so who knows?"

I say it's time to start the test. Everyone who cares for Occupy and such ideologies should either start business based on anarchy, or try to work for such companies. That's how things change. By putting things through the ringer. It's time to try this stuff out in US, once and for all.

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

and who will buy

[-] -1 points by oranges (-42) 1 year ago

Anybody in society could buy the products from a company run with anarchic principles.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

if they have the money

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

Another ExcellentPost ssf.

My two thoughts:

When the American Revolution broke out it was started by hot-headed merchants. They weren't fighting over the cruel exploitation of workers , or the apalling inhumanities.. no , they were fighting over money.. you see the greedy hot-headed merchants wanted it all for them selves .. all the profits.. and the leaders in philadelphia ..understood the wealth to be gained if they could oust the king.. The leaders backed the merchants play .. and sold it to the public as "freedom" and "liberty" , which in a way it was .. but, the problem was the new leaders were in bed with the greedy capitalist merchants ..and had other plans for "freedom " and "liberty" ..they had plans of great wealth .. and not have to share it with anyone.. so the Revolution went on.. and The King was replaced with Capitalism.. and Private Tyranny" ..

The problem today, we have no one to fire that first shot.. nor would anyone back them up..

Perhaps .. to break capitalism and the iron grip private enterprise has on the world and the nation, We need to amend the Constituiton.

If we can not directly abolish Capitalism and exploitation.. perhaps we could make a Constituitonal amendment requiring all capitalists to openly display the mark-up profit on all merchandise. The consumer has a right to know how much mark-up profit there is on the products they purchase .. don't they?

What effect will this have? Well it will open the eyes of the public as to exactly what the dirty underbelly of Capitalism really looks like .. and maybe , just maybe when it comes time to vote in a new system, and rid the world of the filthy ways of capitalism, the people will, in good conscience, find it in their best interest to accept a fair system.

2nd thought :

ssf, I know you advocate democracy in the workplace.. employee owned and run enterprise.. I would like to take that a step further and promote Community owned and run enterprise.. ridding the planet of all private enterprise.

Thanks for the opportunity to share.

~FOB~

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Thanks. Glad you liked it.

Changing constitutions or ruling parties and so on, might be a fine short term goal, but it can't stop there. There has to be systemic change. In order for that to happen, there has to be a change of consciousness (to quote Noam Chomsky) among people. In order for there to be real change, so that a sustainable participatory democracy can be established, the overwhelming majority of the people in the different communities and areas, must want it; they must embrace the ideas and values, and work to implement them in the communities where they live. They must come to realize that creating a libertarian socialist society is the way to go.

As you saw in the post, I have already written a little bit about what I think should be the focus in the struggle for a more free and democratic society.

I think communities and the workforce should be in control. People should have a say in the things they’re a part of, and that means workplace democracy as well. When the economic institutions are run democratically by the participants, it’s no longer capitalism.

[-] 6 points by beautifulworld (20523) 1 year ago

This is so true. I just had a discussion with someone who thinks that an amendment to the Constitution to end corporate personhood is all we really need to do! No way! That will not be enough.

Systemic change developing from a change of consciousness among the masses is what we need! You are right, sff.

[-] 3 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

"Capitalism is an evil, and you cannot regulate evil"

-Michael Moore

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (20523) 1 year ago

Excellent quote, sff.

Ignore the poster below. He's always saying how we should pay attention to the post, not the poster, but then he says that about Michael Moore. LOL. Too funny.

[-] 8 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Yeah. He’s a troll. It’s this Thrasymaque guy. He’s here to piss people off and spread disinformation – and of course deny everything when someone confronts him with it. I will just ignore him from now on. He keeps sending me PMs and comments, but he’s wasting his time.

[-] 4 points by beautifulworld (20523) 1 year ago

Good plan. :)

[-] -2 points by FreddyHaynes (-49) 1 year ago

Disinformation? He's one of the anarchists in NYC who started Occupy. He still comes to most meetings, and is active on anarchist groups on Twitter. What type of disinformation has he posted? Do you have links?

A quick forum search reveals many pro-anarchist posts from that user:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/ows-direct-democracy-in-small-villages/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/why-and-how-ows-must-change-or-onto-anarcho-syndic/

He's also one of the few who worked very hard to protect this site from attacks after its inception.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/spam-and-conspiracy-counter-attack-to-begin-in-a-f/

[Removed]

[-] -3 points by FreddyHaynes (-49) 1 year ago

He never posted penis pictures. That's a plain lie. And no, he wasn't attacking the site in the first place, conspiracy theorists were.

[-] 4 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

cockroach

[Removed]

[Removed]

[+] -4 points by FreddyHaynes (-49) 1 year ago

Instead of constantly attacking users on this forum, why not try something relaxing like painting a panda?

             H|| 
    __________H||___________
   [|.......................|
   ||.........## --.#.......|                       
   ||.........   #  # ......|            @@@@   
   ||.........     *  ......|          @@@@@@@      
   ||........     -^........|   ,      - @@@@       
   ||.....##\        .......|   |     '_ @@@        
   ||....#####     /###.....|   |     __\@ \@       
   ||....########\ \((#.....|  _\\  (/ ) @\_/)____  
   ||..####,   ))/ ##.......|   |(__/ /     /|% #/  
   ||..#####      '####.....|    \___/ ----/_|-*/   
   ||..#####\____/#####.....|       ,:   '(         
   ||...######..######......|       |:     \        
   ||.....""""  """"...b'ger|       |:      )      
   [|_______________________|       |:      |       
          H||_______H||             |_____,_|       
          H||________\|              |   / (        
          H||       H||              |  /\  )       
          H||       H||              (  \| /        
         _H||_______H||__            |  /'=.        
       H|________________|           '=>/  \           
                                    /  \ /|/    
                                  ,___/|
[-] 4 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Cockroach

[Removed]

[+] -4 points by FreddyHaynes (-49) 1 year ago

You didn't see him post porn because he never did. This user did: http://occupywallst.org/forum/could-thrasymaque-and-others-be-members-of-the-int/#comment-522246

I know a lot about Thrasymaque because I took the time to research claims made against him. What I found is that many users supported his actions. Many indeed. He single handedly cleared the site from conspiracy theory attacks, especially those from 911 Truthers and Jew haters.

Here's an important post that clarifies quite a lot. You should read all the comments here. You'll see where the rumors got started. The replies by shadz66 are telling, he basically has no evidence at all. He keeps mostly silent. But, if you really care for the truth, simply ask jart.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/thrasymaque-the-ow-interior-designer-and-vandal-sa/#comment-541656

Read all the comments in the above post, but most important is this comment from NewEnglandPatriot.

[-] 5 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Cockroach

[Removed]

[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Cockroach

[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Cockroach.

[Removed]

[-] -3 points by FreddyHaynes (-49) 1 year ago

And now the mob attack starts as usual. Do you and shooz always work together to attack other users on this site? You're going to attack gnommuny as well?

http://occupywallst.org/forum/art-vs-austerity-who-wins/#comment-974755

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by FreddyHaynes (-49) 1 year ago

It.s time for you to continue your mob attack on gnommuny. GF is here, your attacking partner, and master of kindergartener insults.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/art-vs-austerity-who-wins/#comment-974904

[-] -3 points by FreddyHaynes (-49) 1 year ago

The forum is searchable. Here, another user who defends Thrasymaque. Use the forum search tool. It will help put your delusions of the past aside.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/jart-please-disable-inline-images-in-comments-to-s/#comment-491166

Nope. Thrasymaque never posted porn. He never posted anything obscene at all. That is a simple lie that stems from your paranoia. You need to take your meds.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . - - - . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . / . . . . \ . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . a . . a . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . ( . . . ' . . ) . . . . . | o | . .
. . . . . . . | ' . . . | . . . . . . | o | . .
. . . . . . . \ . . . / . . . . . . . | o | . .
. . . . " \ > . \ Y / | < ' . . _ _ .
. . / . . \ . \ . \ / . / . . ' . ' . / . . . .
. . | . . . ' \ . / | / . | . . . . / . . . . .
. . | . . . . . ' . | . . | ' . . . . . . .
. . . . | . . . . . | . . | . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . | . . . . / . ' . / . . . . . . . . . .
. . . / . . . / . . | . | . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . \ . . . | . | . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . \ . . | . | . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . ; . . | . | . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . / . . | . | . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . | . . . \ . . \ . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . ` . " . . ' . . . ' . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[-] 4 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Cockroach.

[-] -3 points by FreddyHaynes (-49) 1 year ago

Your partner shooz is waiting for you to attack gnommuny now. What user will you guys attack tommorow, and the day after that?

http://occupywallst.org/forum/art-vs-austerity-who-wins/#comment-974904

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] -3 points by FreddyHaynes (-49) 1 year ago

I'm not. It's time for you to continue your mob attack against gnommuny. Your user attacking partner, the master of kindergartener style name calling, GF is here.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/art-vs-austerity-who-wins/#comment-974904

[Removed]

[+] -4 points by FreddyHaynes (-49) 1 year ago

Sir, it's time for your nightly pill intake. Attacking other users with lies does not help our cause, and your angry old self leads to increase risks of heart attacks. Take deep breathes and relax. Use evidence when you accuse others. Assumptions and delusions only lead to mass hysteria and confabulations. Drink up!

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . - - - . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . / . . . . \ . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . a . . a . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . ( . . . ' . . ) . . . . . | o | . .
. . . . . . . | ' . . . | . . . . . . | o | . .
. . . . . . . \ . . . / . . . . . . . | o | . .
. . . . " \ > . \ Y / | < ' . . _ _ .
. . / . . \ . \ . \ / . / . . ' . ' . / . . . .
. . | . . . ' \ . / | / . | . . . . / . . . . .
. . | . . . . . ' . | . . | ' . . . . . . .
. . . . | . . . . . | . . | . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . | . . . . / . ' . / . . . . . . . . . .
. . . / . . . / . . | . | . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . \ . . . | . | . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . \ . . | . | . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . ; . . | . | . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . / . . | . | . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . | . . . \ . . \ . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . ` . " . . ' . . . ' . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[Removed]

[-] -3 points by FreddyHaynes (-49) 1 year ago

He was not avoiding arguments by attacking the proposer, he was making the argument that the proposer was a liar because of lies, misdirections, quote mining, etc... in his films. He then provided many links that debunk Michael Moore movies as his evidence.

This is not the same as struggleforfreedom80's strategy of avoiding arguments by attacking the proposer like here: http://occupywallst.org/forum/capitalism-can-be-overcome/#comment-974099

What the poster you refer to did is not an ad hominem, but what struggleforfreedom80 did is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

[Removed]

[-] -3 points by FreddyHaynes (-49) 1 year ago

You won't find debunkings on Mr. Moore's own site!

[Removed]

[+] -4 points by FreddyHaynes (-49) 1 year ago

Ayn Rands is evil. So are the republicans. Your point? Take your nightly pills. Relax, and try to stop attacking other users on this site with lies and empty accusations. We already have enough conspiracy theories, we don't need more.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . - - - . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . / . . . . \ . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . a . . a . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . ( . . . ' . . ) . . . . . | o | . .
. . . . . . . | ' . . . | . . . . . . | o | . .
. . . . . . . \ . . . / . . . . . . . | o | . .
. . . . " \ > . \ Y / | < ' . . _ _ .
. . / . . \ . \ . \ / . / . . ' . ' . / . . . .
. . | . . . ' \ . / | / . | . . . . / . . . . .
. . | . . . . . ' . | . . | ' . . . . . . .
. . . . | . . . . . | . . | . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . | . . . . / . ' . / . . . . . . . . . .
. . . / . . . / . . | . | . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . \ . . . | . | . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . \ . . | . | . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . ; . . | . | . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . / . . | . | . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . | . . . \ . . \ . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . ` . " . . ' . . . ' . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[Removed]

[-] -3 points by FreddyHaynes (-49) 1 year ago

Take your nightly pill and stop attacking other users here. You spend all your time attacking me, yesterday you attacked gnomunny. Many days you spend attacking new users. It's enough. We need to work together. You made your points. Nobody cares. Now, move on. Take your nightly pills and relax.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/art-vs-austerity-who-wins/#comment-974755

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . - - - . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . / . . . . \ . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . a . . a . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . ( . . . ' . . ) . . . . . | o | . .
. . . . . . . | ' . . . | . . . . . . | o | . .
. . . . . . . \ . . . / . . . . . . . | o | . .
. . . . " \ > . \ Y / | < ' . . _ _ .
. . / . . \ . \ . \ / . / . . ' . ' . / . . . .
. . | . . . ' \ . / | / . | . . . . / . . . . .
. . | . . . . . ' . | . . | ' . . . . . . .
. . . . | . . . . . | . . | . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . | . . . . / . ' . / . . . . . . . . . .
. . . / . . . / . . | . | . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . \ . . . | . | . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . \ . . | . | . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . ; . . | . | . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . / . . | . | . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . | . . . \ . . \ . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . ` . " . . ' . . . ' . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[Removed]

[+] -4 points by FreddyHaynes (-49) 1 year ago

Stop attacking me and relax. Take your nightly pill. Read up on the truth, and stop confabulating about a past you invented through your paranoia.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/jart-please-disable-inline-images-in-comments-to-s/#comment-490824

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . - - - . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . / . . . . \ . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . a . . a . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . ( . . . ' . . ) . . . . . | o | . .
. . . . . . . | ' . . . | . . . . . . | o | . .
. . . . . . . \ . . . / . . . . . . . | o | . .
. . . . " \ > . \ Y / | < ' . . _ _ .
. . / . . \ . \ . \ / . / . . ' . ' . / . . . .
. . | . . . ' \ . / | / . | . . . . / . . . . .
. . | . . . . . ' . | . . | ' . . . . . . .
. . . . | . . . . . | . . | . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . | . . . . / . ' . / . . . . . . . . . .
. . . / . . . / . . | . | . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . \ . . . | . | . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . \ . . | . | . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . ; . . | . | . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . / . . | . | . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . | . . . \ . . \ . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . ` . " . . ' . . . ' . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[Removed]

[-] -3 points by DiegoSanchezAlfonso (-155) 1 year ago

Michael Moore? Really? And you don't want to respond to my ideas and arguments because you distrust me based on gossip? Dude, this guy can't be trusted at all. Half the stuff in his documentaries is just plain false, misdirections, fabricated, etc...

The quote speaks truth, but please, find scholars to quote.

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

I don't talk to this guy anymore. He's a troll. He's this Thrasymaque guy

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by DiegoSanchezAlfonso (-155) 1 year ago

Ya, you just accuse me of many supposed things without providing any evidence at all, accusations based on gossip alone, while you avoid all my ideas and arguments posed in all respect and honesty.

Accusing others without providing evidence is lame, and gratuitous. It also does not promote your idea of people working together in libertarian socialism.

[-] -3 points by DiegoSanchezAlfonso (-155) 1 year ago

We have a different definition of troll. I think people who accuse others without evidence, and who refuse to present evidence when asked are the real trolls here. Attacking people with insults, logical fallacies, and unsupported accusations is trollish. I never did that do you. I merely presented ideas and arguments and was honestly hoping to debate and learn about libertarian socialism. You, on the other hand, have done nothing but attack me without ever demonstrating why. Just gratuitous and lame.

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by DiegoSanchezAlfonso (-155) 1 year ago

If you consider Michael Moore as being a serious scholar or documentarian, than there's not much else I can say except that you are ignorant on the matter. Just read all the debunking articles. You'll see what I mean. He does the same kind of things you'll find in Zeitgeist, or other crappy so-called documentaries.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by DiegoSanchezAlfonso (-155) 1 year ago

Here's a court case:

"Peter Damon Lawsuit

Moore's inclusion of a 10-second clip with amputee Peter Damon has been criticized. Damon said the filmmaker "should be ashamed of himself" for claiming that soldiers were deceived into supporting the Iraq war and for using his injuries as reason to oppose the conflict. Damon "agree[s] with the President 100%. A lot of the guys down at Walter Reed feel the same way." According to Damon's doctor, Lt. Col. Chester Buckenmaier, Moore took "a very positive thing we're doing for soldiers" who lost limbs and "used it to tell a lie."[45] Responding to the criticism, associate producer Joanne Doroshow said, "Anybody who has seen the film knows we have nothing but the deepest respect for the soldiers who were wounded. One of the purposes of the movie was to examine the impossible situation they were put into and to raise questions about why they were sent there."[45]

Peter Damon sued Moore in federal court for $85 million, alleging that the film gave a false impression and was defamatory.[46] Moore's attorney argued in response that the film quoted Damon verbatim and did not take his statements out of context nor give a false impression. The judge agreed and dismissed Damon's suit.[47] In March 2008, the First Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed the ruling in Moore's favor.[48]"

Moor won because he quoted Damon verbatim. What he does is lie with editing by juxtaposing things that are unrelated, messing up chronology, etc... It's all documented in debunking articles. Read them. You'll learn something new.

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by DiegoSanchezAlfonso (-155) 1 year ago

Why would there be court cases? Lies are accepted as part of free speech. Alex Jones, FOX news, movies like Zeitgeist are full of lies and there aren't lawsuits against those lies.

You're the one claiming a logical fallacy. A big one at that. I provided links that show just how Michael Moore lies. There are tons of links debunking his documentaries. You don't want to look at that evidence.

Instead, you tell us that to know if someone lies we simply have to look at whether a court case was filed against him. Essentially, you're saying that if Alex Jones, FOX news, a politician, etc... has no court case filed against him for lying, then he must be telling the truth. That my friend is one of the most ridiculous logical fallacies I have read on this site. Anywhere for that matter.

If he's such a liar, and false documentarian, they would be lining up to sue him.

Do you see people lined up to sue Alex Jones, Zeitgeist, FOX news, because of lies. I don't. It's called freedom of speech. That's why we need people who debunk these claims. There's tons of lies and pseudoscience in US publications, TV, and films. Please.

For added points, you can provide all you can, to show what a great human Roger Smith was.

What's with the red herring?

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Gotta love people living in mansions and well beyond their means, while screaming about people having too much money.

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by DiegoSanchezAlfonso (-155) 1 year ago

"The documentary film Fahrenheit 9/11 generated, and even courted controversy since it was first announced, even before its release just prior to the U.S. presidential election, 2004. The film by Michael Moore criticizes the Bush administration's attempt to pursue Osama bin Laden in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, attacks, as well as the Iraq War. The film has frequently been subject to criticism for its factual and contextual inaccuracies"

[-] -3 points by grace89 (-42) 1 year ago

Fahrenheit 9/11 a documentary????????????? funny, very funny.

[-] -3 points by DiegoSanchezAlfonso (-155) 1 year ago

Ya, that's indeed funny. More like a falsumentary.

[-] -3 points by DiegoSanchezAlfonso (-155) 1 year ago

So no court cases = truth? Is that how your logic works? Do you not realize that US publications, TV shows, TV documentaries, films, magazines, etc... are full of lies and pseudoscience? You're very naive. It's sad.

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by DiegoSanchezAlfonso (-155) 1 year ago

Are you still trolling struggleforfreedom8's posting with your ridiculous, repetitious, and off topic "no court cases = truth" rant? I wrote that you were naive and dumb. These are facts more than insults. I don't have anything against dumb people. Some people are in fact dumb. Most of the time it's not their fault.

If you think Michael Moore's work are good examples of well made documentaries, then, yes, you are naive, dumb, and ignorant on the subject. Read the debunkings. There's tons of them.


I never said Michael Moore didn't support Occupy. He does, so do many Truthers and Zeitgeist followers, it doesn't mean Moore, Truthers, and Zeitgeisters are telling the truth.

[-] -3 points by grace89 (-42) 1 year ago

not naive, just programmed.

[-] -3 points by DiegoSanchezAlfonso (-155) 1 year ago

Just dumb.

[-] -2 points by DiegoSanchezAlfonso (-155) 1 year ago

His documentaries are not honest. He uses editing to promote lies, ambiguous statements, quote mining, etc... He's not a serious scholar or documentarian.

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Michael+Moore+debunked&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by DiegoSanchezAlfonso (-155) 1 year ago

Read all the debunking articles if you are interested on the matter. There are tons on the web, some extremely detailed. His documentaries are full of lies, it's a fact. There's no reason to ignore that fact, it's all over the web.

[Removed]

[-] -3 points by DiegoSanchezAlfonso (-155) 1 year ago

There's clear evidence of his lies in the debunking articles. He wasn't sued because he did nothing wrong. Science fiction is allowed in cinema. The filmmakers of Zeitgeist are not fighting zillions of lawsuits either, for the very same reasons. You have freedom of speech in America, and this covers lies. People lie about the government, corporations, and other things all the time. Look at Alex Jones, is he in court all the time? You don't think he lies? Why do you think a lie in a film, on TV, or on radio, will automatically land you in court? Right wingers lie all the time, are they in court? Or, do you mean to tell us that programs on FOX news are all truthful?

[Removed]

[-] -3 points by DiegoSanchezAlfonso (-155) 1 year ago

Do you mean that any US publication, politician, journalist, magazine, film, etc... that doesn't have a court case filed against them for lying is telling the truth? Is that how your logic works?

I can show you plenty of links to articles that debunk Michael Moore's lies. Some from the left as well as the right. Those articles base their claim on evidence you can easily verify for yourself. His lies are simple, really not deep at all. He uses the same types of lying techniques found in Zeitgeist (another movie without court cases against it). Techniques like quote mining, blatant lies, bad editing, bad chronology of events, etc...

[Removed]

[-] -3 points by DiegoSanchezAlfonso (-155) 1 year ago

Are you still spamming this posting with your ridiculous "no court cases = truth" rant?

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 1 year ago

quote: >>>> If we can not directly abolish Capitalism and exploitation.. perhaps we could make a Constituitonal amendment requiring all capitalists to openly display the mark-up profit on all merchandise.

  • PS... almost along the same line.... what if we qualified the capitalist exploitation ... as how they effect the society/economy/environment/etc...

  • believe it or not... there are capitalists that do help the world ... albeit most don't....

  • what if we taxed those that harm ... and incentive those that help...?

  • and not to disqualify struggleforfreedom80's efforts... for I do believe there is worth there....
  • imo... struggleforfreedom80's interests & goals can easily work in a system that also has the good capitalistic interests & goals working also,,,,
[-] 0 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

What are the benefits of capitalism that we can not duplicate or even improve with a non-capitalist system ?

serious question.

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 1 year ago

capitalism as the concept... does drive economic activity... and economic growth .... how-ever as in practice... capitalism rapes the people and the resources ....

further capitalism doesn't really exist out-side of the underground black-market ....

every form of government in existence ... is some form of socialism .... ie... taxation is a form of socialism... taking from some to support the common good ...

some forms ...lean towards the capitalist side... while others lean towards the communist side ...

we can fix our problems by simply acknowledging the needs

[-] 0 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

"capitalism as the concept... does drive economic activity... and economic growth "

can capitalism also be responsible for economic recession ?

[-] 2 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 1 year ago

quote: >>> can capitalism also be responsible for economic recession ?

absolutely ... it's the only thing that is responsible for economic recession...

but as the pendulum swings ... it [can also] equally be responsible for economic growth that would not have incentive for otherwise... that's the primary argument for capitalism....

however..... often it is not the case.... that's what we have to fix w/ capitalism....

but..... capitalism is not the only way... it is but one side of the spectrum....

there is no reason capitalism ... has to be the only player .... we can have a 'free enterprise" system based on "social profits" also

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

But the recent boom was not spurred on by capitalism, it was spurred on by a huge influx of borrowed money. The Recession which ended the boom was capitalism responbile.. capitalism allowed the greedy to stock pile huge amounts of profit (which came from all the borrowed money) , and those stock piles of profits killed the economy. You see the stock piles stopped the flow of currency .. and when the borrowing dried up the economy died.. How do you feel capitalism was responsible for the boom ? when in fact it was borrowing money that created the boom .. hell if we all borrowed a million dollars again today .. there would be another boom .. right. ?

So.. Capitalism does not create economic growth .. but it creates recession as we just discussed.

Capitalism simply allows the free market to take as much profit as they possibly can on each and every sale.. with out any incentive what so ever to respend those profits back into the economy .. hell the boom is over and many are sitting back with their coffers flowing to the brim .. from all the billions of borrowed dollars .. and high profits .. and now they sit back and are not held responsible for those whom lost their jobs and homes due to a recession. This is of course all perfectly legal with in the rules of a free market system. But what if we were to change the rules a little.. what if we were to cap the allowable mark-up profit.. and not allow the free market to take more just because there is more to take ..

Would it still be called Capitalism if we placed a cap on mark-up profit ?

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 1 year ago

PS.... good post ;)

I'm going to try to give my 2 cents in a while .... but in a nutshell the recent boom was orchestrated and allowed to run it's course in the attempt to create jobs ... expand industry worldwide... and to increase the amount of currency in circulation worldwide....

a crash from any boom is always expected....

but the recession resulted from the thievery that took place ....

anyway.... capitalism... socialism ... communism ... is ancient history ....

none of them alone, will work well today or in the future ....

we need to pick the good from all of them ... and strip the bad ... and build anew ...

[-] 0 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

After a long period of everyone working hard .. a recession gives everyone a physical break , and could be a good thing.. except when all the profits from the boom are not dispersed fairly, than those that worked hard during the boom and did not recieve their fair share of the wealth soon realize a decrease in their savings and cannot sustain their living standards .. their break is cut short.. while the greedy whom kept the greater portion of tyhe profits/wealth.. are smiling.. living high during the recession..

Yes we will build a new ..system of economics.. perhaps by adjusting the one we have.. and equally distributing the profits.. and /or losses. win or lose , if we are all in this together would be a big improvement on the system..

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by arkanoid (7) from New York, NY 1 year ago

Libertarian socialism (anarcho-socialism) is too weak. We should use anarcho-communism. If we're going to completely change our system, why not shoot for the best one?

Capitalism can, and should be abolished; and we know what it should be replaced with.

How would you abolish capitalism? Do you have a specific road map in mind?

[-] 0 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

The main thing is anarcho... after that its up to the community to figure out what route they want to go.

Some will go socialist, some will go capitalist, some will go communist...

imo that would be a beautiful thing because it would get people involved again.

[-] -1 points by arkanoid (7) from New York, NY 1 year ago

Yes, indeed, good idea. I agree. Give the people the power, then let them decide what economical system to use. It makes perfect sense.

[-] -1 points by Whetherman1968 (-67) 1 year ago

SFF: you have espoused taking over corporations by force, if necessary. What would become of present day stockholders?

[-] -1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Capitalism, socialism, communism, ...even libertarian socialism...

When the masses dont pay attention, power centralizes and the corrupt make moves.

Its up to the people of any system to maintain its integrity.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

We should always watch out for power hungry individuals, sure.

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Democracy does NOT equal freedom.

Democracy allows the majority to rule absolutely over the individual. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The goal should be FREEDOM, not wealth.

No one else should have a say in MY life and I dont want a say in anyone else's life.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

No, a real participatory democracy allows people to control their own lives.

If your actions affect others, then they should have a say.

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

I thought you wanted anarchy?

Do you want government or anarchy?

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Anarchism.

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

So you dont want democracy? Im confused.....

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Anarchism is about creating a real participatory democracy, with workers and communities controlling the institutions in society

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Anarchy literally means "without rulers".

Democracy literally means "rule by the people".

How can the "people" rule if there are no rulers?

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Anarchism is about creating a society where no one rules and controls others. It’s about dismantling illegitimate hierarchies. Anarchism is about creating a society where people are in control of their own lives and work. That means democratic control of workplaces, communities and so on.

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Anarchy is about the non-exsistance of authority. It has nothing to do with democracy or socialism or whatever.

Do you mean libertarian anarchism? or something else?

Im really confused.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Anarchism is about dismantling illegitimate hierarchies and creating a real participatory democracy. I'm talking about libertarian socialism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

OHHHHHHH!!!! So you want libertarianism. You were confusing libertarianism with anarchism.

Libertarianism is about having just enough government so that some or most can rule the one.

So you personally want complete control, you dont care about whether anyone else gets a say or not.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

You're not making sense.

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Neither are you. You can't have everyone be a ruler and have nobody be a ruler at the same time.

Anarchism and democracy aren't compatible due to their basic inherent nature.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

if people aren't allowed to have a say in the things they're a part of and affected by, then authoritarian structures will arise.

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

People SHOULD have the only say in their own lives! That's what I've been saying!

When did you ever hear me suggest that one person have power over all others?

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Anarchism is about dismantling authority and domination, so that people are in control of their own lives, and communities.

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

You are right about: "Anarchism is about dismantling authority and domination", but you realize that democracy is about the complete opposite. Democracy is about building institutions that allow a majority to decide law and justice.

You cant have anarchy and order at the same time.

[-] -2 points by StacyBartell (-10) 1 year ago

Any practical examples that work or worked?

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

We’ve seen examples of libertarian socialist/libertarian socialist-like societies working very well. And we see bits and pieces of it all over the place:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/workplace-democracy-and-workers-self-management/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/cooperatives-info-articles-documentaries-etc/

[-] -3 points by DiegoSanchezAlfonso (-155) 1 year ago
  1. What model of direct democracy would you use? I know of none that can scale properly since we haven't yet solved the Democratic Reform Trilemma. Perhaps a type of e-democracy like the Demoex experiment?

  2. Can't OWS start implementing this system in small pockets already? Like worker owned businesses? If so, why isn't OWS pushing this avenue? Or, do you think we need to replace the whole nation's system before we can try out this idea? If so, perhaps it would be safer to try in practice in a small country first? Perhaps an isolate part of US like Hawaii, or an island country?

  3. How do you avoid the problem of argumentum ad populum logical fallacy? (That the majority doesn't necessarily know best)

  4. What's the best example of libertarian socialism in practice?

[-] -3 points by DiegoSanchezAlfonso (-155) 1 year ago
  1. What model of direct democracy would you use? I know of none that can scale properly since we haven't yet solved the Democratic Reform Trilemma. Perhaps a type of e-democracy like the Demoex experiment?

  2. Can't OWS start implementing this system in small pockets already? Like worker owned businesses? If so, why isn't OWS pushing this avenue? Or, do you think we need to replace the whole nation's system before we can try out this idea? If so, perhaps it would be safer to try in practice in a small country first? Perhaps an isolate part of US like Hawaii, or an island country?

  3. How do you avoid the problem of argumentum ad populum logical fallacy? (That the majority doesn't necessarily know best)

  4. What's the best example of libertarian socialism in practice?

[-] -3 points by DiegoSanchezAlfonso (-155) 1 year ago
  1. What model of direct democracy would you use? I know of none that can scale properly since we haven't yet solved the Democratic Reform Trilemma. Perhaps a type of e-democracy like the Demoex experiment?

  2. Can't OWS start implementing this system in small pockets already? Like worker owned businesses? If so, why isn't OWS pushing this avenue? Or, do you think we need to replace the whole nation's system before we can try out this idea? If so, perhaps it would be safer to try in practice in a small country first? Perhaps an isolate part of US like Hawaii, or an island country?

  3. How do you avoid the problem of argumentum ad populum logical fallacy? (That the majority doesn't necessarily know best)

  4. What's the best example of this libertarian socialism in practice?

[+] -4 points by grace89 (-42) 1 year ago

the other systems of govt are proven failures. capitalism is and always will be the answer.

[-] 4 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Capitalism is undemocratic, exploitative and unsustainable; it must be abolished.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/abolish-capitalism/

[+] -5 points by grace89 (-42) 1 year ago

sore loser

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

What are you talking about?

[-] -2 points by grace89 (-42) 1 year ago

your opinion of capitalism. "undemocratic,exploitive and unsustainable"

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

If you disagree with anything I've said, then present some arguments.

[-] -2 points by grace89 (-42) 1 year ago

socialism is not " democratic" neither is communism. they both exploit people and both are unsustainable.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

What do you mean by "socialism" and "communism"?

[Removed]

[-] -3 points by oranges (-42) 1 year ago

Why do you waste time replying to people without arguments, as opposed to people with arguments that are different than yours? Is it because it's easier to "win" against them? Is that what you're here, to "win" arguments? Is that why you dealt with kiwi up there with logical fallacies, because you couldn't debate in proper fashion?

[-] 3 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

I try to answer as many as I can – including the ones who present a lot of counter arguments. I don’t know if you noticed the discussion I had with Sandy under the article “Capitalism is the Problem” ?

"Is that why you dealt with kiwi up there with logical fallacies, because you couldn't debate in proper fashion?"

Nope. It's because I don't trust this "Thrasymaque" guy

I'm here to share my opinions and try to convince others by doing so.

[-] -1 points by oranges (-42) 1 year ago

You don't trust him because jart downvoted him with a computer? He had a higher score than you have now before he was banned and automatically down voted from 6000 to -2000. And, why do you need to trust the proposer of an idea or argument? Is that because you can't judge an idea or argument based on its own merits? If we can't debate serious issues with people we don't trust because of whatever reason, how are we supposed to form a society based on anarchy? You're creating a hierarchy between those you trust and those you don't. Why? Why not just talk about the ideas and arguments. Appeal to motive is a logical fallacy. We need to push reason, logic, the scientific method, evidence based solutions, etc... Not logical fallacies.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

lol

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Capitalism has failed, clearly.

Economics as a legit field of intellectual thought and being has failed. Ecomonics is up there now with metaphysics, religion and other pseudosciences.

[-] -2 points by grace89 (-42) 1 year ago

if you spend more money than you have, you will be in debt. Thats a fact, not "pseudoscience"

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Money is a made thing. Money is only real when people make it real.

Science says that things are real, whether humans act upon them or not. Space is real, whether I want it to be or not. The ground is real whether I want it to be or not.

The economy and economics in general exist only because humans want them to exist. Their existance is not inherent.

[-] -2 points by grace89 (-42) 1 year ago

Economics is real. Try paying your bills by telling your creditors ( gas co, phone co, electric co, landlord or mortgage, ) that their bills for use of their services are not real..

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

I agree that economics are real, but only because Humans created economics.

I am saying that economics should banned/outlawed/ixed from everyday life. Economics is a bad thing.

[-] -2 points by grace89 (-42) 1 year ago

So, humans created economics, they also created art and music,................does that make them not real? Most everything in this world has been created by people. you are able to read this post because people created alphabets ( and pictographs) that is/are used for language and all other languages.as for you opinion on economics,............... you have no understanding of civlized life.

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Im not arguing with you on the point of whether economics is real or not. I agree that economic IS real. Im saying that it is real because humans made it up.

I beleive that in the future, either humans will all kill eachother off or economics will cease to real.

[-] -2 points by grace89 (-42) 1 year ago

"economics is real because humans made it up"...............humans made up just about everything. are you on drugs?

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Humans didnt invent space or the earth or electricity or the structure of an atom. I mean I could be wrong(and/or on drugs), but Im pretty sure that electricity pre-dates humans, space pre-dates humans, the structure of an atom pre-dates humans.

That is pretty much everything. Matter, empty space quantam mechanics, all of those predated humans and account for most of the natural phenomenom which occur in our universe.

Economics is because we think it is.

[-] -2 points by grace89 (-42) 1 year ago

no, they did not invent space but have explored it in man made machines, have explored it with man made telescopes, have generated electricity ( instead of waitng for a lightening strike) and made it work for them with man made inventions, have split the atom and created more energy. these things harnessed by humans for the betterment of life on earth,

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

What does the exploration of space have to do with it's invention? Economics did not exist before humans.